Version: 2008

August 16, 2007 11:57 AM PDT

Father of the compact fluorescent bulb looks back

  • 34 comments
Consumers with an eye to conserving energy may be snatching those swirly compact fluorescent bulbs off store shelves now, but 30 years ago they were barely a shade away from crazy.

"I was given a number of reasons why it wouldn't work," said Ed Hammer, a retired General Electric engineer who invented compact fluorescent while working at the company in the 1970s. "I was told it could be a little better than an incandescent bulb, but that was about it."

Ed Hammer
Courtesy of Ed Hammer
Ed Hammer and the first
compact fluorescent bulb.
Critics said it couldn't be done.
But by carefully spacing the
spirals, Hammer was able to
avoid reflective losses and
come out with a bulb that
could light a room.

Instead, increasing energy costs have made Hammer's invention a quickly growing part of the consumer market. Household CFLs operate on 13 to 25 watts of energy, far less than 60- to 100-watt incandescent bulbs, and thus have become a favorite with consumers trying to curb energy costs. The bulbs also last far longer than standard incandescent bulbs. Although the bulbs contain mercury and thus aren't supposed to be thrown away with the regular trash, sales are climbing. Sales could climb further if legislation pending in various jurisdictions banning incandescents passes.

CFLs will face heated competition with light-emitting diodes, but right now the price of LED lights is fairly high.

GE assigned Hammer to work on energy efficient bulbs at its labs in Nela Park, Ohio, during the first U.S. energy crisis in the mid-'70s. His first invention was a standard-shaped 40-watt fluorescent lamp, called the F-40 Watt Miser, in 1973. To lower the power consumption, Hammer changed the gas used and tweaked various components inside the lamp.

Next came the CFL. Bulbs and fluorescent light, however, are not a natural combination. Fluorescent lights are ordinarily tube-shaped. Curving them into a bulb shape creates reflective losses, i.e. light that shines from one part of the tube gets deflected by a nearby spiral.

Through a lot of trial and error, he came up with a way to space the spirals far enough apart to minimize losses without also losing a bulb-like shape. Many manufacturers have tried different designs, but the shape Hammer coined remains dominant.

Hammer invented the bulb in 1976, he said, and primarily worked alone. (Editor's note: the years reflect the time Hammer says he invented the bulbs, not when GE announced them.) The original prototype is in the Smithsonian.

Although executives at GE liked the idea, they decided not to market it at the time. CFLs would require entirely new manufacturing facilities, which would cost $25 million. "So they decided to shelve it," Hammer said.

The electronics giant contemplated licensing the design. Unfortunately, the design leaked out. Others copied it before GE started a licensing program.

"That's how it became widespread," he said. Still, "it has been a big hit for GE."

Hammer hasn't done badly either. He has published more than 40 papers and was awarded the Edison Medal by the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 2002.

See more CNET content tagged:
General Electric Co., Ohio, energy, light-emitting diode, design

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (34 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Shouldn't we be moving to LEDs?
by HikingStick August 16, 2007 1:01 PM PDT
While I applaud the conservation mindset that led to growth of alternatives to incandescent bulbs, I am concerned about disposal of more and more compact flourescents. I would rather see us move toward fitting LEDs for our lighting needs, requiring even less power than CF bulbs and further limiting the impact of old bulbs on landfills (since they are even smaller than CFs and potentially have a much longer useful life).
Reply to this comment
Just too expensive
by tobart August 16, 2007 1:17 PM PDT
LED light bulbs are available I believe, just extremely rare. The main problem is that they are just too expensive. I expect them to be mainstream within the next 5 years as manufacturing costs go down, but for now the industry is kind of stuck. There certainly is major research going into making them more efficient already though.
View reply
LED's for space lighting are cost prohibitive
by cubesquared August 16, 2007 1:21 PM PDT
Go check any online sources for alternative lighting and you'll see the outrageous prices for a 30 lumen LED bulb. Definitely for the bleeding green-edge folks out there.
LED's are poisonous too
by Andrew Wolfe August 16, 2007 3:45 PM PDT
LED's used for lighting generally contain arsenic - so they are also a disposal problem. Efficiency is similar; lifetime is a bit better. They are far more adjustable and can be run a dim levels efficiently. CFL's are pretty much just as good for most people.
View reply
Yes.....but.....
by arjay67 August 17, 2007 11:27 AM PDT
I haven't yet seen comparisons on the amount of potentially hazards materials contained in both, or which requires less energy to manufacture. If LED's win on both counts, then I'd be happy to switch.
objection
by rapidbunny August 16, 2007 1:12 PM PDT
"Unfortunately, the design leake"
I guess that's wrong. Looks like fortunate that the technology leaked and became widespread instead of staying unused on the GE's shelve for who-knows how many more years or decades.
Technology thiefs might prove beneficial sometimes :)
Reply to this comment
Thanke ye squire
by michael kanellos August 16, 2007 2:06 PM PDT
My olde time fingers move a'miss sometimes!
CFLs: Good, but not the Cat's Meow
by Techno Guy August 16, 2007 3:35 PM PDT
I have recessed "canned" lighting fixtures throughout my house that are designed for 65-watt R30 floodlight bulbs. As the existing incandescent bulbs burn out, I typically replace them with 14-watt CFLs to benefit from their reduced energy consumption. Unlike some fluorescent fixtures these CFLs have no detectable flicker, and at full luminosity they outshine 65-watt incandescents with a very pleasant, bright-white light.

In my experience, however, CFLs have shortcomings that make them imperfect replacements for incandescents. Once you flip the switch, many CFLs flicker or stay dark for several moments before they light up -- behaviors that are surprisingly annoying. Alternative "instant-on" CFLs typically start instantly, but at greatly reduced luminosity, taking a minute or two to reach their full brightness. Although they are harder to find, I prefer the "instant-on" variety. But because they are so dim when they start off, I prefer to have at least one incandescent in a room to provide instantly bright light.

Additionally, although CFLs are supposed to last much longer than incandescents, some fail prematurely -- and too many failures will significantly undercut the cost benefit of their reduced energy consumption.

The other major shortcoming of CFLs is that they contain mercury. No matter how many warnings people are given about "proper disposal", the vast majority will still end up in the household trash when their useful life has ended. And it is worth asking what the proper clean-up procedure is should you ever break one.

While I think the benefits of CFLs outweigh their shortcomings, I am adamantly opposed to proposed laws mandating their use. Reasonable skepticism recognizes that those in the CFL supply chain will profit enormously from CFL mandates, without the trouble of having to convince consumers of the value of their products. In the free market, people are free to choose CFLs if CFLs make sense to them, and that is as it should be. That marketplace competition is what will drive production efficiencies, cost reductions, and improvements -- something that will benefit everyone.
Reply to this comment
Most now instant on?
by baisa August 16, 2007 5:32 PM PDT
A previous poster complained about the lag. I had tried CFLs a
long time ago and found that very annoying. But I was pleasantly
surprised when I recently converted a bunch of lights in my
place to the latest CFLs (from GE I think) -- the are pretty much
"instant on", and I don't notice that they start out dim (although
maybe they do and I didn't notice).

One major remaining disadvantage: the standard CFLs are not
dimmable, and I'm a dimmer fanatic, so I can only replace about
1/2 my bulbs. Also, the 3-way is a huge monster that is much
bigger than the incandescent version, and it sticks out the top of
torchieres etc.

I just bought a bunch of LED-based nightlights to replace my
incandescent ones (hey, 2-4 x 4W, adds up over time!) and am
not too happy, since they give off a goulishly blue light. Bigger
models intended for household use had better get the spectrum
right!
View reply
More Liberal media preening over enviro causes
by gerhard_schroeder August 16, 2007 4:17 PM PDT
This story has no effect on anything, other than to try to alter the culture to make environmentalist rock stars. Social engineering by the media.
Reply to this comment
Um, no.
by House_of_Mirth August 16, 2007 5:32 PM PDT
There's no problem with the story. The problem is your paranoia.

Please, go crawl back into your cave and stop polluting public
discourse.
Blah Blah Blah
by arjay67 August 17, 2007 11:26 AM PDT
More drivel from "The Agenda-izers".
OMFG!!! THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!1
by chris_d August 18, 2007 4:28 PM PDT
Damn all those liberals, using less electricity and saving money on their electric bills. AND don't forget, lowering energy usage means fewer new power plants have to be built, which keeps per kwh rates low. AND the LIBERAL MEDIA goes and congratulates them on on it! Well dammit, I'm going to go give my life savings to Halliburton and Exxon! That'll show those liberals! Ha! Take that LIBERAL MEDIA!

I think you should stop stealing Rush's drugs. Look how bad they've messed him up.

It's just another example of how neoconservatives aren't conservative at all. In contrast, my gradmother is a life-long Republican and is very strongly against wasting anything. Somebody better tell her that most of her party doesn't believe in conserving anymore.

Neocon slogan: "I'm a conservative and I hate the LIBERAL MEDIA! Now let's go waste stuff!"
No effect on anything?
by cturkin August 19, 2007 7:32 AM PDT
Really? No effect on anything?

Why don't you go and have a look at a few glaciers and tell us that there is no effect on anything?

www.talkclimatechange.com
I wish we could filter sub agenda blather
by eeemang August 19, 2007 11:37 AM PDT
What exactly is your blather about anyway? You sem off center and lacking perspective re lighting and CFLs.
Re:More Liberal media preening over enviro causes
by pctec100 August 21, 2007 3:09 PM PDT
Where does this article say anything about environmentalism or liberal ideology?

What I got out of it is that the bulbs have gained popularity because they use less energy and last longer and that saves consumers money.

If saving money is viewed as part of the liberal agenda these days then go ahead and call me a liberal because I love saving money.
China
by gggg sssss August 16, 2007 5:36 PM PDT
Unfortunately, the major beneficiaries of this craze is the Chinese Military Industrial complex. They ship over boatloads of these bulbs, we ship back boatloads of cash.
Reply to this comment
China
by J-G-Spears April 16, 2008 4:05 PM PDT
I will not buy compact flourescent bulbs or anything else from China. Does anyone know a non-chinese manufacturer of compact flourescent bulbs?
Rolling in his own sh**
by dvthex August 16, 2007 8:52 PM PDT
He won't stop polluting public discourse. He's one of those people who not only lives in his own sh** by choice, he also loves rolling in other people's offal. Being a conservative ... it's sad and ironic that "conservative" and "conservation" seem to be antonyms ... he KNOWS that other people should live and think the same way he does and if they don't, they should be jailed.
Reply to this comment
oops
by dvthex August 16, 2007 8:56 PM PDT
My comment above was intended to be a reply to House_of_Mirth's reply to gerhard_schroeder's "More Liberal media preening over enviro causes" post.
Thppt!
by arjay67 August 17, 2007 11:25 AM PDT
Where do you come up with this stuff?
View reply
CFL lifetime greatly exaggerated
by dmm August 17, 2007 8:00 AM PDT
I buy them but remain a skeptic. For starters, they claim to have a lifetime of 7 years. Hahahahahahahaha! That's a good one! How about 1 year? Somebody should start a class action lawsuit regarding false lifetime claims for CFLs.
Reply to this comment
Re: CFL lifetime greatly exaggerated
by arjay67 August 17, 2007 11:24 AM PDT
You must be buying some cheap made in China bulbs. I have some in my home that burn 8 - 12 hours per day and I just lost the first one after 6.95 years.
View reply
The problem with lifetime
by drewbyh August 17, 2007 11:53 AM PDT
The issue of shorter lifetime doesn't have to with the advertised lifetimes nor the build quality of the CFL. The issue is more about the quality of power coming into the home. CFL are sensitive to fluctuations in voltage that power them. Even small spikes in voltage or under voltage can shorten their lifetimes by a bit. The ability of the CFL to handle these fluctuations has improved in the last 2 years.
Depends on how you use it
by javaman97 August 23, 2007 9:07 PM PDT
Fluorescents are sensitive to power on-off cycles. The more you turn them on and off, the shorter the lifespan.
Fluorescents should be used in lamps that have an average of at least 3 hours a day of usage. They should be turned on at dust, then turned off at bed time (or left on over night). In an office setting, turned on in the morning, and off after the cleaning crew leaves.
Fluorescents should not be used in bathrooms, motion sensor lights, or other cases where they will remain on for a only a short time.
LED's are the future.
by kieranmullen August 17, 2007 1:59 PM PDT
Anyone see recent LED flashlights? I was at the sporting good store just yesterday lusting over new flashlights. (I like gadgets) The new LED flashlights are far brighter than the old ones (like I have) In the end I couldnt justify buying another flashlight since I already have so many of them.

Since they are on a different wavelength the light doesnt travel as far, but along with the brightness, I believe this will change as well in time.

LED's lightbulbs are coming soon.

BTW speaking of outdoor lights, why dont more people say anything about light pollution? All outdoor streetlights need to have downward light reflectors.

KieranMullen
http://360oregon.com
Reply to this comment
physics lesson
by Rick Cavaretti August 17, 2007 2:33 PM PDT
'since they are on a different wavelength the light does not travel very far'?

What are they teaching in school these days? Very few wavelengths are impeded in our atmosphere, due to absorption. The mundane wavelengths which emanate from our everyday products do just fine, thank you.
We like CFLs
by eeemang August 19, 2007 11:35 AM PDT
Of course we like CFLs. In my local stores the GE brand is never in stock for long, esp the 6 bulb carboard box that makes the bulb available at the lowest costs versus the higher cost in the single or double "blister pack".
I find that GE has the most consistent light of the various brands. I know they all come from China unlike approx 15 years back when the Con Ed utility in NY sold 3 sizes of U shaped screw in bulbs for $5.00 each to get us to try and use them. Those original 3 units, Panasonic and OSRAM brands marked made in USA, are still working in my house.

I do notice that these disciussion boards are packed with people who have tangential agendas and huge boastful claims that have no basis in fact. I wish their squeals would somhow be filtered into a sub post area.
Reply to this comment
Inventor?
by lexx12 August 21, 2007 7:00 PM PDT
Agapito Flores invented it, GE just bought the patent.
Reply to this comment
(34 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (0.00%) 0.00 10,520.10
S&P 500 (0.53%) 5.89 1,126.48
NASDAQ (0.71%) 16.05 2,285.69
CNET TECH (0.64%) 10.53 1,657.91
  Symbol Lookup
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right